text: Background The Puget Sound basin—the southern half of the transboundary Salish Sea—consists of about 19 major watersheds, according to EPA, and spans much of western Washington State and portions of British Columbia, Canada, as shown in figure 1. The basin covers more than 10,000 square miles, including about 2,800 square miles of inland marine waters and thousands of rivers and streams. The Puget Sound basin features a wide variety of land uses, including highly urbanized areas, agricultural lands, large swaths of commercial forests, and areas that are largely protected from development, such as national parks and wildlife refuges. The Puget Sound Partnership has identified numerous environmental stressors that threaten Puget Sound and that have impaired water quality. In particular, the Partnership has reported that nonpoint sources of pollution, such as polluted stormwater runoff from roads and agricultural fields, are the biggest threats to Puget Sound water quality. Polluted stormwater runoff can also threaten sources of drinking water and carries toxic chemicals, nutrients, sediment, and bacteria into Puget Sound, where these pollutants can harm aquatic life. For instance, a 2017 study found that toxic stormwater runoff is linked to the high rates of adult coho salmon mortality that have been observed in some urban streams in central Puget Sound. Moreover, fish, shellfish, and other species that are contaminated by toxic chemicals and other pollutants in Puget Sound may subsequently pose a threat to other marine wildlife and to humans that consume them. For example, in 2017 the Partnership reported that approximately 16 percent of the roughly 225,000 acres managed for commercial shellfish harvesting in Puget Sound were closed because of water pollution caused by fecal bacteria from sources such as failing septic systems and agricultural runoff. Such closures have economic impacts, as Washington State is the country’s leading producer of farmed oysters, clams, and mussels, and much of this production comes from the Puget Sound region. In addition, contaminated shellfish may pose potential health threats to people who consume it, including tribes that rely on shellfish for subsistence and ceremonial uses. Human activities have also degraded habitats that salmon and other marine species depend on for survival. The Partnership has reported that some of the primary threats to Puget Sound habitats include hardened shorelines (such as shorelines that have been armored with seawalls), filled estuaries, channelized rivers, and altered floodplains. These threats affect habitats in various ways. For example, according to a 2018 Washington State report, seawalls interfere with natural coastal processes and cause beaches to erode, which in turn can decrease and degrade habitat for fish, birds, and wildlife. The report states that about 27 percent of the shoreline in Puget Sound has been armored by structures such as seawalls. Figure 2 illustrates the sources of water quality impairment and habitat degradation in the Puget Sound basin. Federal laws, including the Clean Water Act and the Endangered Species Act, play a role in addressing water quality issues and habitat degradation in Puget Sound. The Clean Water Act’s objective is to restore and maintain the chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the nation’s waters. A 1987 amendment to the act created the National Estuary Program to, among other things, identify nationally significant estuaries that are threatened by pollution, development, or overuse, and promote comprehensive planning for, and conservation and management of, such estuaries. The National Estuary Program calls for management conferences to be convened for designated estuaries of national significance to, among other things, develop a comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP). The current CCMP for Puget Sound is The 2016 Action Agenda for Puget Sound, a document developed to meet both federal and state requirements. By federal statute, when selecting estuaries and convening management conferences, EPA is to give priority consideration to certain named estuaries, including Puget Sound. Under the act, EPA also works with Washington State to regulate water quality. The Endangered Species Act was enacted to, among other things, provide a means to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered and threatened species depend and to provide a program for the conservation of such species. Several species in the Puget Sound basin are listed as endangered or threatened, including bull trout, Chinook salmon, Southern Resident Killer Whales (a population that spends spring, summer, and fall months in the Salish Sea, including Puget Sound), northern spotted owl, and steelhead trout. In addition to environmental laws that relate to Puget Sound waters and species, tribal treaty rights play an important role in restoration efforts within the basin’s watersheds. In particular, 19 federally recognized tribes are within the Puget Sound basin, and many of them have explicit treaty rights to the fish in Puget Sound waters. In 1974, a federal court held that the treaty tribes had the right to take up to 50 percent of the harvestable fish in areas where fishing rights had been reserved, an allocation upheld by the Supreme Court in 1979. In 1994, a federal court stated that tribes were also entitled to take half of the harvestable shellfish on most Washington beaches. According to several federal officials we interviewed, considerations relating to tribal treaty fishing rights have served as an important catalyst for some federal agencies’ restoration activities, particularly with regard to restoring and protecting habitat. Federal and State Entities Carried Out Numerous Efforts that Supported Puget Sound Restoration Using a Variety of Funding Sources, but Total Expenditures Are Unknown Federal and state entities we surveyed identified numerous federal and state efforts that, in whole or in part, supported Puget Sound restoration from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Some of these efforts focused exclusively on restoration activities in the Puget Sound basin, while others had a broader national, regional, or statewide focus or had a broader scope of work that did not center directly on restoration activities. These efforts were supported by a variety of federal and nonfederal funding sources, such as EPA’s National Estuary Program and Puget Sound Geographic Program, which together expended about $142 million for activities in Puget Sound during this time frame according to EPA data. However, total expenditures across all restoration efforts are unknown, in part because of data limitations such as difficulties isolating expenditures specific to the Puget Sound basin for some efforts. Federal and State Entities Carried Out Numerous Restoration Efforts that Varied in Geographic and Programmatic Scope Through their responses to the first phase of our survey, officials from federal and state entities identified numerous efforts that supported Puget Sound restoration from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. Specifically, respondents from federal entities identified 73 federal efforts, and respondents from state entities identified 80 state efforts that, in whole or in part, supported Puget Sound restoration during this period. Appendix II lists the restoration efforts identified by federal entities, and appendix III lists the restoration efforts identified by state entities. According to the survey responses, the federal and state entities often worked with local governments, tribal entities, and nongovernmental organizations to carry out these efforts. These efforts primarily involved six types of restoration activities (see table 1). The federal and state restoration efforts carried out during this time period varied in geographic scope. Some of the efforts survey respondents reported focused exclusively on the Puget Sound basin, such as Washington State’s Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund. According to agency fact sheets, this fund has helped state agencies, local governments, and others carry out projects that address high-priority salmon habitat protection and restoration needs in Puget Sound. Other efforts that supported restoration activities in Puget Sound during the time frame we reviewed have a broader national, regional, or statewide focus. For example, EPA’s section 319 nonpoint source management program is a nationwide program that supports state and tribal efforts to address nonpoint sources of pollution. Within Puget Sound, EPA’s data show that the section 319 program has supported activities such as carrying out projects that target nonpoint source pollution from urban areas, agricultural lands, and marinas. The federal and state restoration efforts survey respondents identified also varied in programmatic scope, with some efforts focusing exclusively on restoration-related activities and other efforts supporting such activities within a broader scope of work. Through the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Coastal Wetland Conservation Grant Program, Washington State carried out activities specifically aimed at restoring wetlands, estuaries, and marshes in Puget Sound. In contrast, some efforts survey respondents cited had a broader scope of work that did not center directly on restoration but included some activities that also benefited Puget Sound restoration. One such effort was the Natural Resources Conservation Service’s Environmental Quality Incentives Program, which helps farmers carry out conservation practices on agricultural land. According to agency documentation, such as the program’s website, some of these practices, such as those that reduce the amount of sediment and nutrients entering waterways, can also help improve water quality in the Puget Sound basin. A Variety of Federal and Nonfederal Funding Sources Support Restoration Efforts, but Total Expenditures Are Unknown Funding for Puget Sound restoration efforts has come from a wide variety of federal and nonfederal entities. At the federal level, some agencies, such as EPA and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), supported restoration efforts by providing funds to other federal or nonfederal entities to carry out restoration projects. In contrast, other agencies, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, directly carried out restoration activities in Puget Sound, sometimes working in conjunction with nonfederal entities. Based on our analysis of survey responses and interviews with agency officials, we selected the following examples of federal programs to show the diversity in federal funding approaches in support of Puget Sound restoration and to illustrate how federal funds have been leveraged to obtain nonfederal contributions in support of restoration efforts. EPA’s National Estuary Program. According to EPA’s website, this program aims to protect and restore the water quality and ecological integrity of designated estuaries of national significance, such as Puget Sound. EPA Region 10 officials stated that the agency uses funds from this program in conjunction with funds from EPA’s Puget Sound Geographic Program to support restoration efforts. According to data provided by EPA, these programs together expended about $142 million for activities in Puget Sound from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. EPA provided most of these funds through grants to state and tribal entities. According to EPA Region 10 officials we interviewed, EPA requires an overall dollar-for-dollar nonfederal match for these grants, and the officials stated that the National Estuary Program funds have been leveraged to obtain significant nonfederal funding support for Puget Sound restoration efforts. For example, the Floodplains by Design program, a joint effort led by The Nature Conservancy and state agencies to restore natural floodplain functions, has used National Estuary Program funds to help leverage nonfederal funding support, according to the EPA officials. NOAA’s Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund. Under this program, NOAA awards funds through grants to state and tribal entities to carry out salmon recovery activities in five western states. In Washington State, NOAA provided funds to the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office and the Northwest Indian Fisheries Commission for use in Puget Sound and other areas. According to data and estimates provided by NOAA, as of November 2017 these entities had expended or allocated about $59 million from this program for activities in the Puget Sound basin from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. This program requires a 33 percent match from state agencies, such as the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office, that receive funds, and NOAA officials we interviewed said that Washington State usually exceeds this matching requirement. For example, a 2015 NOAA report cites a habitat restoration project in Puget Sound that received about $117,000 from the Pacific Coastal Salmon Recovery Fund and secured an additional $1.75 million in matching and other funds. Corps’ Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Restoration Program. Under this program, the Corps carries out habitat restoration projects in Puget Sound in conjunction with nonfederal entities, such as cities. In 2000, Congress created this program and authorized $40 million to be appropriated to carry out the program. As of November 2017, the Corps had expended approximately $12 million over the life of the program on five restoration projects, according to data provided by the Corps. This program includes a cost-sharing requirement for the participating nonfederal entity to contribute at least 35 percent of the total project costs. Survey respondents cited nonfederal funds as the exclusive source of funding for about one-third of the state efforts presented in appendix III. For example, Washington State’s Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund, which the Partnership and the Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office jointly manage, has been a significant source of nonfederal funding for habitat restoration projects. According to expenditure data provided by the Partnership, the Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund expended approximately $100 million on restoration projects throughout Puget Sound from state fiscal years 2012 through 2016. In its response to our survey, the Recreation and Conservation Office stated that these projects included culvert replacements, levee setbacks, and acquisition of important habitat, among other things. When carrying out specific restoration projects in Puget Sound, federal and nonfederal officials we interviewed said that project managers may need to secure funds from multiple federal and nonfederal sources, such as the federal and state programs discussed above. According to tribal and local participants in our discussion groups, their experiences carrying out restoration projects has similarly shown a need to piece together multiple sources of funding for some projects. The discussion group participants said that this need commonly arises with expensive and complex projects that take a long time to complete, as reflected in the project examples below that involved tribal and local entities. Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project. According to a project fact sheet and officials, this project restored more than 350 acres of estuary habitat in the Snohomish River Delta that had previously been converted into farmland. By breaching existing levees and taking other actions to reestablish natural stream channels and allow for tidal inundation of the historic floodplain, this project aimed to restore salmon habitat and improve water quality in the estuary (see fig. 3). In 2016, NOAA reported that this project had led to improvements in salmon abundance, productivity, and diversity. The Tulalip Tribes of Washington served as the overall project manager and worked with numerous federal, state, and local partners to complete this project, which took more than 20 years and ended in 2015. According to tribal data, this project cost about $21 million and received funding from more than 20 federal, state, tribal, and local sources. Federal funds accounted for a little more than half of this amount; the Corps contributed the largest amount, around $5 million, using funds from the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Restoration Program. Seahurst Park Shoreline Restoration Project, Phase II. This phase of the project lasted from 2007 to 2014 and included removing about 1,800 feet of seawall, creating a small wetland, and restoring shoreline habitat at a coastal park in Burien, Washington (see fig. 4). Through these actions, this project aimed to improve nearshore marine habitat for salmon and other species, restore natural sedimentation processes, and improve recreational access to Puget Sound. The city of Burien led this effort in conjunction with the Corps. According to documentation provided by the city and the Corps, this phase of the project cost about $10 million and received funding from at least seven federal, state, and local sources, including EPA’s National Estuary Program, the Corps’ Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Restoration Program, and Washington State’s Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration Fund. As shown in the program and project examples above, we obtained expenditure information for a selection of programs and projects to help illustrate how federal and nonfederal funds have been used to support Puget Sound restoration. However, we found that the total amount of expenditures incurred for Puget Sound restoration across all federal and nonfederal efforts for fiscal years 2012 through 2016 is unknown. We identified two primary barriers to determining the total amount of expenditures. First, data limitations present challenges to obtaining accurate and consistent expenditure data across entities. For example, federal and state agency officials said that for some national and statewide programs, it is difficult to isolate expenditures specific to the Puget Sound basin or to quantify expenditures related to staff time that supported restoration-related activities. Second, no comprehensive database of Puget Sound restoration activities and expenditures exists. This issue was identified by the Washington State Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee in its 2017 audit of the Puget Sound Partnership, which recommended that the Partnership and the Washington State Office of Financial Management develop a plan to create a more complete inventory of restoration efforts and related funding. Both agencies concurred with the recommendation, and the Partnership reported in December 2017 that a more complete inventory of efforts and funding would significantly enhance the agency’s ability to prioritize actions and recommend strategic investments. The Partnership reported that it plans to develop such an inventory by August 2019. Federal and Nonfederal Entities Have Taken Steps to Coordinate Restoration Efforts and Identified Both Benefits and Challenges to Interagency Coordination Federal and nonfederal entities have established two primary interagency groups, the Puget Sound Management Conference and the Puget Sound Federal Task Force, to coordinate Puget Sound restoration efforts at the strategic level. Coordination also occurs at the project level and, according to our discussion group participants, has been most effective under certain circumstances, such as when written plans and agreements are in place to help entities work together across their normal jurisdictions. Federal and nonfederal entities provided their views on the benefits produced by the management conference and the federal task force as well as challenges that could limit the effectiveness of these groups, such as not having had continuous national-level leadership for the federal task force. Federal and Nonfederal Entities Coordinate Restoration Efforts at the Strategic Level through Two Primary Interagency Groups Federal and nonfederal entities coordinate at the strategic level to, among other things, identify goals, develop strategies to achieve the goals, and set priorities for action. This coordination primarily occurs through two main interagency groups: the state-led Puget Sound Management Conference, which started in its current form in 2007, and the Puget Sound Federal Task Force, which started in 2016. Each group has developed a planning document to guide its efforts. Figure 5 provides an overview of each group’s structure and planning document. The management conference serves as the governance structure for Puget Sound restoration under the National Estuary Program and helps set the general direction for the restoration effort. To do so, the management conference brings together federal and nonfederal entities under a common planning process led by the Partnership to develop and periodically update the CCMP. EPA’s Region 10 office then works with EPA’s National Estuary Program national office to review and approve any new or updated CCMPs developed by the management conference. The CCMP serves as the primary planning document for Puget Sound restoration and identifies proposed near-term actions to help restore the Sound, nearly all of which are to be carried out by nonfederal entities. For example, one of the proposed near-term actions calls for a local university to sample contaminants of emerging concern in regional waters to help characterize risks and prioritize follow-up actions. The Puget Sound Federal Task Force complements the work of the management conference by coordinating the efforts of federal agencies in support of the CCMP and by helping these agencies work together to fulfill federal trust responsibilities to the tribes as they relate to The Puget Sound Federal Task Force Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2017-2021) (Federal Action Plan). The task force was created through a memorandum of understanding signed by nine federal agencies as of October 2016, and in January 2017 the task force released its Federal Action Plan, which is currently in draft form. The federal task force consists of a national-level leadership group—which focuses on higher-level policy, oversight, and coordination issues—and regional leadership and implementation teams that perform much of the on-the-ground implementation and coordination work of the task force. The national-level group is co-chaired by the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) and a co-chair that rotates among the other agencies. The task force’s regional teams are led by EPA’s Region 10 and a co-chair that rotates among the other agencies. According to EPA Region 10 officials, the draft Federal Action Plan developed by the task force is not intended to be a strategic plan with its own overarching restoration objectives. Instead, the federal task force used the priorities established in the CCMP and tribal documents, as well as salmon recovery priorities, as the basis for developing its draft Federal Action Plan, which identifies priority federal actions to help protect and restore Puget Sound. For example, to support the habitat-related priorities established in the 2016 CCMP and elsewhere, the draft Federal Action Plan identifies more than 40 priority federal actions that focus on protecting and restoring habitats, such as by removing fish passage barriers and implementing projects to restore estuaries. Federal and Nonfederal Entities Coordinate at the Project Level in Various Ways Based on our interviews with federal and nonfederal officials and the local and tribal discussion groups, federal and nonfederal entities coordinate at the project level to plan, secure funding for, and carry out specific restoration actions, such as projects to improve water quality or restore habitat in a particular location. According to federal officials, federal involvement at the project level varies and may range from providing funding to being more directly involved in project planning and implementation. Participants in our discussion groups said that local and tribal entities often lead the on-the-ground planning and implementation of restoration projects, including coordinating with other participating entities throughout a project’s lifecycle. For example, the Qwuloolt Estuary Restoration Project we previously discussed was largely led by a local tribe that coordinated the involvement of numerous federal, state, local, and nongovernmental entities throughout project planning, permitting, and implementation. The management conference recognizes nine local integrating organizations—local groups made up of various local, tribal, and other nonfederal participants—to, among other things, guide the implementation of the CCMP’s priorities at a local scale in specific geographic areas of Puget Sound. In addition, 15 salmon recovery lead entities, which are local watershed-based organizations that develop local salmon habitat recovery strategies and manage projects to implement the strategies, are active in the Puget Sound region. Representatives from these local integrating organizations, salmon recovery lead entities, and tribal entities participated in our moderated discussion groups and identified several factors that have helped to facilitate effective collaboration among entities on restoration projects. Some of the factors discussion group participants commonly cited were consistent with key features that we have previously identified as benefiting interagency collaboration, including: Involving all relevant participants. Discussion group participants highlighted the importance of ensuring that the appropriate entities are involved to bring together a broad range of knowledge, skills, and expertise in support of restoration projects. For example, one discussion group participant commented that his local organization’s ability to partner with both government and nongovernmental entities and harness their talents has enhanced its efficiency in carrying out restoration projects. Other participants stated that an important part of successfully involving all relevant participants has been early engagement with members of the local community to identify priorities and vet projects. In addition, several participants described projects that could not have been carried out without the financial, technical, and political support of diverse partners. Ensuring that the appropriate entities are involved is consistent with our previous work on interagency collaboration, which found that it is important to ensure that all relevant participants have been included in collaborative efforts, including federal agencies, state and local entities, and organizations from the private and nonprofit sectors. Bridging organizational cultures to build trust. Discussion group participants cited the long-standing relationships that have been built over time among different restoration partners as critical to developing the level of trust needed for project-level collaboration to succeed across organizational boundaries. For example, one participant said that having long-standing collaborative relationships with other partners has helped her local organization identify, secure funding for, and carry out good restoration projects. Another participant described a separate example of a local watershed council that has met monthly for 30 years, explaining that these meetings have developed a level of trust among the key partners that helps them work toward common goals and deal with difficult issues. We have previously reported that different agencies participating in any collaborative mechanism bring diverse organizational cultures to it. Accordingly, it is important to address these differences to enable a cohesive working relationship and to create the mutual trust required to enhance and sustain the collaborative effort. We have also reported that positive working relationships among participants from different agencies help to bridge organizational cultures, build trust, and foster communication, which then facilitates collaboration. Having written plans and agreements. Discussion group participants also described the benefits that have resulted from having local plans and agreements in place to help entities work together across their normal jurisdictions on restoration projects. For example, according to one local discussion group participant, the decades-old formal agreement among the local governments within his watershed was a fundamental reason for the restoration successes they achieved. The participant explained that this agreement has helped the local governments look beyond their immediate jurisdictions and think more broadly about priorities for the entire watershed. We have previously reported that agencies that articulate their agreements in formal documents can strengthen their commitment to working collaboratively. According to Federal and Nonfederal Entities, the Steps Taken to Coordinate Restoration Efforts Have Yielded Benefits, but Challenges Remain that May Limit Effectiveness Federal and nonfederal entities we surveyed and interviewed identified benefits produced by the steps taken to coordinate restoration efforts, including the development of the management conference, the federal task force, and their respective planning documents. Federal and nonfederal officials generally described the management conference as having provided an effective forum for different entities to share their diverse views and work collaboratively to address priority restoration issues in Puget Sound. Moreover, officials said that the management conference has helped Puget Sound restoration by enabling federal and nonfederal entities to identify common goals and develop strategies to achieve the goals, among other things. These benefits are consistent with our previous work on interagency collaboration, which found that defining and articulating common outcomes and establishing strategies to achieve them are practices that can enhance and sustain collaboration. Federal officials credited the federal task force, and in particular the task force regional teams, with having helped to improve communication and coordination of efforts among federal agencies by bringing together a broad group of agencies to focus on issues surrounding Puget Sound restoration and tribal treaty rights. Other benefits of the task force that survey respondents identified include providing national-level awareness of restoration activities and providing a forum for nonfederal entities to engage with federal agencies on restoration or species-related issues. Federal and nonfederal entities also identified strengths of the key planning documents that the management conference and federal task force developed to help coordinate Puget Sound restoration efforts, based on our interviews and our analysis of survey responses. For example, 8 of the 27 federal and state entities that responded to our survey said the 2016 CCMP provides a clear blueprint or road map for the restoration of Puget Sound that helps guide restoration efforts in a common direction. In the case of the draft Federal Action Plan, survey respondents from 7 of the 27 federal and state entities said that one of the plan’s primary strengths is that it clearly defines a list of priority federal actions and identifies roles and responsibilities for implementing them. This is consistent with our previous work on interagency collaboration, which found that agreeing on roles and responsibilities is a leading practice that can help enhance and sustain collaborative efforts. In addition, one federal survey respondent credited the development of the draft Federal Action Plan with helping to raise awareness among federal agencies of each other’s efforts, which the respondent said has led to improved coordination. Federal and nonfederal entities also identified challenges the management conference faces that could limit its effectiveness as an interagency coordinating group. For example, according to Partnership officials we interviewed, within the management conference there are differing views and disagreements about how to balance local versus regional perspectives and decision-making authorities. In addition, some federal and nonfederal entities described the planning process to produce the CCMP as overly burdensome and frustrating. The Joint Legislative Audit and Review Committee’s 2017 audit of the Partnership similarly reported on frustration and planning fatigue among the entities they interviewed that stemmed from the frequency of plan updates, which state law had required take place every 2 years. In 2017, Washington State amended the law to extend the required planning cycle to every 4 years, which the Partnership said should result in a more effective use of time for the agency and its partners. We also found, through our analysis of agency documents and interviews with federal officials, that the federal task force faced an additional challenge that it has since addressed. Specifically, the federal task force did not have continuous leadership at the national level because the task force’s national leadership group was inactive for more than a year beginning in January 2017. During this time, CEQ, the permanent co- chair of the national-level task force leadership group, did not convene the group for meetings, and there was uncertainty about who would represent some agencies after the change in administration and subsequent changes in agency personnel, according to officials from the task force agencies. EPA Region 10 officials said that the federal task force’s regional implementation team remained active during this period and facilitated continued engagement among federal agencies and nonfederal partners at the regional level. Nevertheless, without an active national-level leadership group in place, the federal agencies did not have a fully functioning task force and were not in a position to fulfill some of the task force’s responsibilities under the memorandum of understanding, such as approving a federal action plan. In April 2018, a senior CEQ official informed us that CEQ had taken action in response to our discussions with CEQ staff about this challenge and convened a meeting of the national-level task force group on April 4, 2018. In addition, according to the CEQ official, the task force agencies have committed to working together going forward and plan to continue meeting. By working with the other federal agencies to hold this meeting and secure this commitment, CEQ has taken an important step toward addressing the challenge we identified and ensuring that national-level leadership is in place for the federal task force. The CCMP Lays Out a Framework for Assessing Progress toward Puget Sound Restoration, but Assessment of Progress Has Been Limited in Some Instances The CCMP lays out the primary framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration, including six high-level goals created by state law and a variety of associated indicators and targets. The Partnership leads the management conference’s efforts to assess restoration progress under this framework, but its assessments have been limited because of insufficient data and because targets have not been established for all indicators. In addition, we found that the federal task force has limited ability to assess how the implementation of the Federal Action Plan, which is currently in draft form, contributes to overall restoration progress under the CCMP’s framework, because the task force has not clearly linked the plan’s priority federal actions to the framework’s goals, indicators, and targets. The CCMP’s Framework for Assessing Progress Includes Goals, Indicators, and Targets The CCMP lays out the primary framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration, including goals, indicators, and targets. In 2007, the Washington State legislature established six high-level goals for Puget Sound restoration that continue to guide the CCMP, with an overarching directive to strive to achieve the goals by 2020. The six high-level goals are: Healthy human population. A healthy human population supported by a healthy Puget Sound that is not threatened by changes in the ecosystem. Vibrant human quality of life. A quality of human life that is sustained by a functioning Puget Sound ecosystem. Thriving species and food web. Healthy and sustaining populations of native species in Puget Sound, including a robust food web. Protected and restored habitat. A healthy Puget Sound where freshwater, estuary, nearshore, marine, and upland habitats are protected, restored, and sustained. Abundant water. An ecosystem that is supported by groundwater levels as well as river and streamflow levels sufficient to sustain people, fish, and wildlife, and the natural functions of the environment. Healthy water quality. Fresh and marine waters and sediments of a sufficient quality so that the waters in the region are safe for drinking, swimming, shellfish harvest and consumption, and other human uses and enjoyment, and are not harmful to the native marine mammals, fish, birds, and shellfish of the region. The CCMP identifies 25 categories of measures, called vital signs, used to gauge the health of Puget Sound. Each vital sign is designed to support one of the six high-level goals. For example, the CCMP has assigned four vital signs—marine water quality, freshwater quality, marine sediment quality, and toxics in fish—to collectively assess progress toward the goal of healthy water quality. According to the CCMP, most vital signs are represented by one or more specific measures, called indicators, for a total of 47 indicators. Based on our analysis of Partnership data, more than half of these indicators have measurable recovery targets set for the year 2020, and some of the indicators also have measurable interim targets to assess incremental progress. Figure 6 provides an example of the relationship among goals, vital signs, indicators, and targets for 1 of the 47 indicators. To achieve the CCMP’s recovery targets, the Partnership, supported by other members of the management conference, has initiated an effort to develop implementation strategies that will outline, among other things, specific approaches, actions, and program and policy changes that are needed. According to the Partnership’s implementation strategy guidelines, each implementation strategy will focus on the recovery targets for indicators under a particular vital sign or a set of related vital signs. The guidelines state that the implementation strategies are to also estimate the costs of achieving recovery targets, including the cost- effectiveness of specific activities to inform decisions about priority investments and expectations for progress. Officials from EPA and the Partnership said no official estimates have yet been developed for the total costs to restore the Sound, but EPA Region 10 officials stated that investments on the order of tens of billions of dollars, if not more, will likely be necessary. According to EPA Region 10 officials, the implementation strategies will help more directly link investments to restoration progress, a step consistent with our previous reporting on enhancing the use of performance information. Specifically, in September 2005 we reported that linking cost with performance information brings performance concerns into planning and budgetary deliberations, prompting agencies to reassess their performance goals and strategies and to more clearly understand the cost of performance. The Partnership Has Taken Steps to Assess Restoration Progress under the CCMP’s Framework, but Its Assessment of Progress Has Been Limited in Some Instances The Partnership leads the management conference’s efforts to assess Puget Sound restoration progress and has taken steps to do so under the CCMP’s framework. In particular, the Partnership created the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program to help monitor the effectiveness of restoration actions and assess restoration progress. The Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program includes representatives from federal entities, such as EPA, and nonfederal entities, such as state and local agencies. The Partnership uses information from the Puget Sound Ecosystem Monitoring Program and other sources to assess and report on restoration progress in a biennial State of the Sound report, which was most recently published in November 2017. The Partnership has assessed two primary aspects of restoration progress for the CCMP’s 47 indicators: (1) progress relative to baseline conditions and (2) progress toward the 2020 recovery targets. Assessments of Progress Relative to Baseline Conditions The 2017 State of the Sound reported the general results of assessments of progress relative to baseline conditions for 29 of the 47 indicators, with additional details available on the Partnership’s website. According to the State of the Sound, progress was made in some areas but many key indicators did not show improvement, as reflected below: Ten indicators improved compared to baseline data. For example, one of the indicators reported as improved was acres of harvestable shellfish beds, which is associated with the goal of a healthy human population. According to the Partnership’s website, from 2007 to 2016 the number of acres of harvestable shellfish beds increased by approximately 4,800 acres. Fifteen indicators showed mixed results or no improvement relative to baseline data. For example, one indicator reported as showing no improvement was the abundance of Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations, which is associated with the thriving species and food web goal. According to the Partnership’s website, these populations remain below desired levels. Four indicators worsened compared to baseline data. For example, another indicator for the thriving species and food web goal tracks the number of Southern Resident Killer Whales. According to the Partnership’s website, from 2010 to September 2017, the number of Southern Resident Killer Whales declined. However, the State of the Sound was unable to report on assessments of progress relative to baseline conditions for 18 of the 47 indicators because of data limitations. Specifically, the State of the Sound reported that there were insufficient data or no data available to assess progress relative to baseline conditions for these indicators. Based on our analysis of information on the Partnership’s website, the most common reason for these data insufficiencies is that the data for many indicators are in the early stages of collection and more time is needed to obtain enough data to assess progress. For example, the Partnership plans to assess nine indicators under the healthy human population and vibrant quality of life goals using new data collected through a survey, which the website states should allow the Partnership to assess progress within several years. According to a senior Partnership official, in addition to needing more time to collect data and assess progress for some indicators, resource limitations have posed a challenge to addressing some of the data gaps. Assessments of Progress toward Recovery Targets The 2017 State of the Sound reported general information on the progress made toward recovery targets, with additional details available on the Partnership’s website. Based on our analysis of Partnership data, we found that the management conference has adopted measurable 2020 recovery targets for 31 of the 47 indicators. According to the State of the Sound, most indicators have not met their interim targets, and most of the 2020 targets are not likely to be attained, as reflected in the examples below. The Partnership reported that the indicator for restoration of floodplains showed some progress toward its 2020 target to restore 15 percent of degraded floodplain acreage in Puget Sound, but the 2020 target was still far from being met. According to the Partnership’s website on the Southern Resident Killer Whales indicator, the 2016 interim target of an end-of-year census of 91 whales was not met, and as of September 2017 the number of Southern Resident Killer Whales was well below the 2020 target of 95 whales. However, the overall ability to assess progress toward recovery targets has been limited because the management conference, led by the Partnership, has not established recovery targets for all indicators. Specifically, according to our analysis of Partnership data, recovery targets have not been established for 16 of the 47 indicators. We have previously reported on the importance of using performance measures to track progress in achieving goals and have identified key attributes of successful performance measures, such as having measurable targets. More specifically, a measurable target should have a numerical goal, without which it is difficult to tell whether performance is meeting expectations. Partnership officials we interviewed said that recovery targets have not been established for all indicators because they first focused on developing targets for indicators about which more information was known. The officials said they have not had sufficient resources to fully develop all of the indicators and associated recovery targets to assess progress, and that additional information and expertise are needed to develop targets for some indicators. According to EPA Region 10 officials we interviewed, developing targets for the remaining indicators would be useful, but given limited resources, it may be necessary to prioritize indicators for which to develop targets. We recognize that developing measurable recovery targets can take time and resources and that prioritizing among the remaining 16 indicators for the development of targets is important. The management conference plans to issue an updated CCMP in December 2018, with another update scheduled for 2022, according to Partnership officials. EPA officials said that EPA’s Region 10 office will be responsible for reviewing and approving these updated CCMPs in conjunction with EPA’s National Estuary Program national office. Partnership officials we interviewed said that the management conference intends to reexamine and, as appropriate, revise the indicators and targets during the development of the 2022 CCMP. EPA’s National Estuary Program guidance directs EPA regions to work with management conferences to ensure that revisions of the CCMP contain all the appropriate content, including quantitative performance measures where possible. By working with the management conference on future updates to the CCMP to help prioritize among the indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible, EPA would better position the Partnership to assess progress toward restoration goals. The Federal Task Force Has Limited Ability to Assess How the Implementation of the Federal Action Plan Contributes to Overall Restoration Progress under the CCMP’s Framework The federal task force has limited ability to assess how the implementation of its Federal Action Plan, currently in draft form, contributes to overall restoration progress under the CCMP’s framework, according to our analysis of agency documents and interviews. We found that except in a small number of cases, the federal task force has not clearly linked the priority federal actions identified in the draft Federal Action Plan to the CCMP’s goals, vital signs, indicators, or recovery targets. For example, one of the plan’s priority federal actions is to replace or remove culverts that pose a barrier to fish passage on Forest Service roads. However, the plan does not specify how the expected outcome of this action will contribute to the CCMP’s goals, vital signs, indicators, or recovery targets. The federal task force’s memorandum of understanding calls for the integration of federal efforts with those of nonfederal entities in the implementation of the CCMP. According to EPA Region 10 officials we interviewed, one of the primary purposes of the federal task force is to support the CCMP as the strategic plan for Puget Sound restoration, which includes the overarching goals and targets for the restoration effort. The federal task force’s regional implementation team is responsible for annually evaluating the Federal Action Plan and making any necessary modifications. As the permanent co-chair of the regional implementation team, EPA’s Region 10 office leads the effort to track and report information on the progress made in implementing the action plan, according to Region 10 officials. EPA has developed a tool to track the implementation of each priority federal action in the plan and has started to collect initial information from the other task force members, according to the Region 10 officials. The tracking tool documents the implementation status of each of the priority federal actions, but similar to the action plan, the tracking tool does not show how the actions are linked to the CCMP’s goals, vital signs, indicators, or recovery targets. We have previously reported on the importance of interagency collaborative efforts, such as federal task forces, to track and monitor progress toward their desired outcomes. In addition, we have reported that agencies can increase the value of their performance reporting by linking annual performance information with their goals, a leading practice for performance reporting. According to an EPA official involved in leading the regional implementation team, the draft Federal Action Plan did not link the priority federal actions to the CCMP’s framework for assessing restoration progress because the task force had focused on higher-level alignment between the organization of the action plan and the CCMP’s strategic initiatives, which focused on habitat, stormwater, and shellfish. In addition, the EPA official said that the tracking tool does not include such linkages because the tool has focused more narrowly on tracking the progress made in carrying out the priority federal actions. According to the EPA official, better documenting the linkage between the priority federal actions and the CCMP’s goals, vital signs, indicators, and targets would be helpful for assessing progress. The official said that he sees value in making these linkages more explicit, and that one opportunity to do so would be to add more detail in the tracking tool on how some of the key federal actions connect to the various elements of the CCMP’s framework for assessing progress. Similarly, some federal and state survey respondents reported that more explicitly linking the information in the Federal Action Plan to the CCMP would be helpful, based on our analysis of narrative responses about shortcomings to the draft Federal Action Plan and the plan’s alignment with the CCMP. By working with the appropriate members of the regional implementation team to clearly link, such as through the tracking tool, the plan’s priority federal actions to the CCMP’s framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration, EPA would better position the federal task force to assess the impact of its efforts and the implementation of the draft— and, if applicable, final—action plan. Federal and Nonfederal Entities Identified Several Factors, Including Population Growth and Climate Change, that May Limit the Success of Puget Sound Restoration Federal and state respondents to our survey and tribal and local participants in our discussion groups identified a number of factors that may limit the long-term overall success of Puget Sound restoration efforts. Federal and nonfederal entities have control over some of these factors, such as coordination, but entities in the region may have less ability to influence other factors, such as climate change. To obtain views from federal and state agency officials, we asked survey respondents to rate the level of risk that 10 factors could pose to the long-term overall success of Puget Sound restoration efforts. We identified these factors based on our review of key restoration documents, such as the CCMP, and our interviews with federal and nonfederal entities. Figure 7 illustrates the number of survey respondents that identified each of the factors as posing a great risk. Through our analysis of the survey results, discussion group transcripts, federal and nonfederal documentation, and agency interviews, we found that federal and nonfederal entities consistently identified certain key factors as posing significant risks that may limit the success of Puget Sound restoration, including: Effects of population growth and increased development. According to estimates in the CCMP, the population of the Puget Sound region is projected to increase from roughly 4.5 million in 2016 to 7 million people by 2040. Survey respondents and discussion group participants explained that population growth and the associated increase in development threaten restoration efforts in a variety of ways. For example, population growth and development contribute to new habitat loss and water quality degradation and may contribute to increases in property values that can raise the costs of restoration projects that involve land acquisitions. Nearly all of the survey respondents rated this factor as posing a great risk, and the majority of survey respondents identified this factor as the single greatest risk to the long-term overall success of Puget Sound restoration efforts. Effects of climate change and ocean acidification. According to the CCMP, climate change and ocean acidification could affect many aspects of Puget Sound’s ecosystem and natural resources. In addition, a 2015 University of Washington report stated that projected increases in sea surface temperatures associated with climate change could harm salmon populations and increase the magnitude and frequency of harmful algal blooms in Puget Sound. Moreover, according to a report from the Washington State Blue Ribbon Panel on Ocean Acidification, more than 30 percent of Puget Sound’s marine species—including oysters, clams, mussels, and crabs—are believed to be vulnerable to ocean acidification because of its corrosive effects on some shelled organisms. According to a December 2017 report by the Washington Marine Resources Advisory Council, Washington’s waters are considered to be among the most highly affected by ocean acidification in the world. A variety of actions are under way in Washington State to respond to this threat, including the implementation of stormwater and nutrient reduction programs to reduce the severity of acidifying conditions and research on kelp cultivation to absorb carbon dioxide to improve seawater conditions. Funding constraints. Funding constraints cited by federal and nonfederal entities included concerns about securing funds for future restoration efforts and the administrative challenges associated with combining multiple sources of funding to carry out projects. According to Partnership officials we interviewed, many of the near-term actions called for in the CCMP are at risk of not being carried out because funding has not been secured for these actions. Discussion group participants also cited difficulties securing funds as a barrier for project implementation and stated that the challenges associated with having to cobble together funds from multiple sources can delay or threaten the success of restoration projects. The participants explained that managing the requirements of multiple funding sources can increase administrative burden and project complexity. Moreover, discussion group participants explained that the single-year funding cycles for some programs and the restrictions that are sometimes placed on how funds can be used present additional challenges, as they are not always compatible with the needs of more complex multi- year restoration projects. Participants in the discussion groups noted a critical need for predictable, consistent, multi-year funding to adequately and efficiently plan and carry out restoration activities. The factors identified by federal and nonfederal entities as posing a risk to the success of Puget Sound restoration efforts are consistent with some of our prior work on large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts in other parts of the country. Specifically, we previously reported that similar factors—including population growth, the effects of climate change, and funding constraints—may limit restoration efforts in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay. Conclusions Restoring Puget Sound is a large, complex, and potentially costly endeavor that involves many federal, state, local, tribal, and nongovernmental partners, and it faces a number of factors that may limit long-term success. Federal and nonfederal entities have made progress in coordinating the numerous restoration efforts underway by establishing the Puget Sound Management Conference and the Puget Sound Federal Task Force and by developing the CCMP and the draft Federal Action Plan. The Partnership, through its plans to develop a more complete inventory of restoration efforts and related funding, can make important information available for coordinating the management of the efforts moving forward. In addition, the Partnership has led the management conference’s efforts to assess restoration progress under the framework laid out in the CCMP, reporting in 2017 that while progress had been made in some areas, many key indicators had not shown improvement. However, these assessments have been limited by insufficient data, resources, and the lack of measurable targets, which have not been established for 16 of the 47 indicators. By working with the management conference on future updates to the CCMP to help prioritize among the indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible, EPA would better position the Partnership to assess progress toward restoration goals. In addition, the federal task force has made progress by coordinating its actions through the Federal Action Plan and can continue to make progress as it takes steps to implement the draft plan—and, if applicable, any final version of the plan that is approved. However, the task force has limited ability to assess how the implementation of its plan contributes to overall restoration progress because neither the plan nor the tracking tool developed by EPA’s Region 10 clearly link the plan’s priority federal actions to the goals, vital signs, indicators, or recovery targets that make up the CCMP’s framework. By working with the appropriate members of the regional implementation team to clearly link, such as through the tracking tool, the plan’s priority federal actions to the CCMP’s framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration, EPA would better position the federal task force to assess the impact of its efforts and the implementation of the draft—and, if applicable, final—action plan. Recommendations for Executive Action We are making the following two recommendations to EPA: The EPA Region 10 Administrator should work with the management conference on future updates to the CCMP to help prioritize among the indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible. (Recommendation 1) The EPA Region 10 Administrator should work with the appropriate members of the federal task force regional implementation team to clearly link, such as through the tracking tool, the Federal Action Plan’s priority federal actions to the CCMP’s framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration. (Recommendation 2) Agency Comments and Third-Party Views We provided a draft of this report for review and comment to CEQ; the Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; EPA; and the Puget Sound Partnership. EPA provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix IV, and stated that it generally agrees with the conclusions and recommendations in our report. The Departments of Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, and the Interior responded by email that they did not have comments on the draft report. CEQ, the Department of Agriculture, and the Department of Transportation provided technical comments, which we incorporated as appropriate. The Partnership also provided written comments, which are reproduced in appendix V, and stated that our report does a good job describing a complex landscape. The Partnership’s comments included one technical comment, which we incorporated as appropriate, and highlighted several points that we made in the report, including the lack of targets for some indicators and other barriers to success, the importance of obtaining more comprehensive information on restoration expenditures, and the importance of linking the work of the federal task force to the CCMP. In its written comments, EPA stated that it appreciated the work we performed to understand the scope and intricacies of restoration efforts in Puget Sound and our coordination with multiple federal and nonfederal entities in developing our report. EPA agreed with our recommendation to work with the management conference to help prioritize among the indicators that currently lack measurable targets and ensure that such targets are developed for the highest priority indicators where possible. The agency stated that it has begun working with the Partnership and other management conference partners to identify this as a priority for the next review of the CCMP, as well as to develop a clear plan for advancing this priority. EPA also stated that progress has been made to evaluate the current set of indicators and vital signs as a result of a 2017 project led by the Partnership and that recommendations from that project will inform both adjustments to the current set of indicators and future target setting. In addition, EPA agreed with our recommendation to work with the appropriate members of the federal task force regional implementation team to clearly link the Federal Action Plan’s priority federal actions to the CCMP’s framework for assessing progress, and the agency highlighted steps it will take to do so. EPA stated that it has already met with the federal task force’s regional leadership and implementation teams and reached agreement to review the Federal Action Plan and specify how each action connects to the vital signs and other elements of the CCMP. EPA stated this this crosswalk process will begin in January 2019 after the updated CCMP is approved. We are sending copies of this report to the appropriate congressional committees; the Chair of CEQ; the Secretaries of Agriculture, Commerce, Defense, Homeland Security, the Interior, and Transportation; the Administrator of EPA; the Executive Director of the Puget Sound Partnership; and other interested parties. In addition, the report is available at no charge on the GAO website at http://www.gao.gov. If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please contact me at (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Contact points for our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found on the last page of this report. GAO staff who made key contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology This report examines (1) Puget Sound restoration efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2016; (2) how federal and nonfederal entities coordinate their restoration efforts and their views on this coordination; (3) the framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration; and (4) key factors, if any, federal and nonfederal entities identified that may limit the success of Puget Sound restoration. To help us understand the legal framework supporting restoration efforts across these four objectives, we reviewed selected relevant federal and state laws, including the Clean Water Act, the Endangered Species Act, and Washington State law governing Puget Sound water quality protection and establishing the Puget Sound Partnership. To examine Puget Sound restoration efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, we used the first phase of a two-phase survey to identify federal and state efforts that supported Puget Sound restoration during this time frame. We selected this period to allow us to obtain information on a range of restoration efforts carried out in recent years. In addition, we used the first phase of the survey to obtain information on the availability of expenditure data for the federal and state efforts and to help determine whether any limitations existed that would affect the reliability of such data. As part of developing the first phase of the survey, we conducted a pretest with the Partnership to check that the questions were clear and used terminology correctly and to ensure that we could obtain the requested information without placing an undue burden on agency officials. We sent the first phase of the survey to 15 federal and 11 state entities in June 2017, and all of them responded. We identified the 15 federal entities based on their participation in the Puget Sound Federal Caucus, a group formed of regional federal entities in 2007 to help coordinate federal restoration efforts in Puget Sound. The federal entities were the Bureau of Indian Affairs, Federal Emergency Management Agency, Federal Highway Administration, Federal Transit Administration, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Park Service, Natural Resources Conservation Service, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Army Joint Base Lewis-McChord, U.S. Coast Guard, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Forest Service, U.S. Geological Survey, and the U.S. Navy. We identified the 11 Washington State entities based on our review of the comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP)—called The 2016 Action Agenda for Puget Sound—and our discussions with federal and state officials. The state entities were the Office of Financial Management, Puget Sound Partnership, Recreation and Conservation Office, Washington State Conservation Commission, and the Washington Departments of Agriculture, Commerce, Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, Health, Natural Resources, and Transportation. In the first phase of our survey, we requested specific information on federal and state efforts to support Puget Sound restoration. Table 2 summarizes the questions we are reporting on from the first phase of the survey. We also asked other questions that we do not specifically report on to provide additional context for the survey responses. For example, we asked the respondents whether their agency managed each effort on its own or jointly with other entities, and we asked whether their agency had provided funding from each effort to other entities. We used the first-phase survey results in part to develop catalogs of federal and state efforts that supported Puget Sound restoration from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. To obtain additional information about the federal and state efforts identified in the survey responses, we reviewed documentation, such as agency websites and reports, and interviewed agency officials. We incorporated this additional information as appropriate in the catalogs, and we then asked each entity to verify the accuracy of the information presented in the catalogs. Appendix II presents the catalog of federal efforts, and appendix III presents the catalog of state efforts. Based on the results of the first phase of the survey and additional follow- up interviews with agency officials, we determined that we would be unable to collect sufficiently reliable data to report on the total amount of expenditures that have supported Puget Sound restoration. In particular, we identified data limitations that would make it difficult for us to collect consistent, reliable, and comparable expenditure data across all of the federal and state entities’ efforts. These limitations included difficulties isolating expenditures within the geographic boundaries of Puget Sound for some efforts, difficulties isolating expenditures that supported restoration activities as opposed to other purposes, and difficulties quantifying administrative expenses, such as staff salaries and travel expenses, associated with specific efforts. As a result of these limitations, we limited our collection of expenditure data to a nongeneralizable sample of three federal programs and one state program to provide examples of the diversity in funding approaches used to support Puget Sound restoration. We considered the following factors in selecting these efforts: 1) their prominence in Puget Sound restoration, 2) variations in the federal and state entities involved in carrying them out, 3) variations in their size, and 4) evidence of reliable expenditure data. In addition, to help illustrate how federal and nonfederal funds are used together at the project level, we interviewed agency officials and obtained expenditure data for two recently completed restoration projects. We selected these projects because they had received funding from a variety of federal and nonfederal sources and illustrated how federal and nonfederal entities work together to carry out restoration projects. We also conducted two site visits to observe the outcomes of these projects. We assessed the reliability of the expenditure data for these program and project examples by comparing the data we obtained with data from other sources where possible, reviewing agency documentation, and interviewing knowledgeable agency officials. We found the data to be sufficiently reliable for our purposes. To examine how federal and nonfederal entities coordinate their restoration efforts in Puget Sound and their views on this coordination, we identified two key groups that coordinate among federal, state, local, tribal, and nongovernmental entities: the state-led Puget Sound Management Conference and the Puget Sound Federal Task Force, which replaced the Puget Sound Federal Caucus in 2016. We analyzed key restoration-related documentation, including the CCMP developed by the management conference and the federal task force’s draft The Puget Sound Federal Task Force Action Plan (Fiscal Years 2017-2021) (Federal Action Plan). We also interviewed officials from EPA and the Council on Environmental Quality about the implementation of the federal task force. In August 2017, we sent the second phase of our survey to the 15 federal and 11 state entities that had received the first phase, as well as to the Washington State Governor’s Office, to obtain their views on the coordination of restoration efforts and we received responses from all of the entities. The second phase of the survey featured, among other things, a series of open-ended and closed-ended questions about the role of the management conference and the federal task force in helping to coordinate restoration efforts and about the strengths and shortcomings of the CCMP and the draft Federal Action Plan. We refined the second phase of the survey based on pretests we conducted with two federal agencies and two state agencies to ensure that the questions were clear and used terminology correctly and that we could obtain the requested information without placing an undue burden on agency officials. Table 3 summarizes the questions we are reporting on from the second phase of the survey. We also asked other questions that we do not specifically report on to provide additional context for the survey responses. For example, we asked the respondents to identify what steps, if any, could be taken to improve the management conference and the federal task force, and we asked whether any entities were missing from these groups that should be included. We also held six moderated discussion groups, three with tribal representatives and three with local representatives, to obtain their views on factors that have helped and hindered their ability to implement restoration projects, including factors related to coordination. We selected the tribal and local entities to participate in the discussion groups because of their involvement in implementing restoration projects. We invited all 19 federally recognized tribes in the Puget Sound basin to participate in our discussion groups, as well as two tribal consortia that support restoration efforts. Representatives from 15 of these tribal entities participated in the tribal discussion groups. For the three local discussion groups, we invited all 9 local integrating organizations and all 15 salmon recovery lead entities within the Puget Sound basin to participate. Representatives from 7 of the local integrating organizations and 13 of the salmon recovery lead entities participated in the three local discussion groups. We conducted the six moderated discussion groups over the telephone in May and June 2017. During each discussion group, the GAO moderator asked participants to list factors that, in their experience, had helped their tribal or local entity implement restoration projects in Puget Sound, as well as factors that hindered their ability to do so. The moderator then asked participants to elaborate on how the factors had helped or hindered the implementation of restoration projects. When necessary, the moderator asked probing questions to further clarify participants’ comments. Two or three analysts transcribed each session and combined and reconciled notes to develop transcripts for each of the discussion groups. We analyzed the transcripts from the six discussion groups using qualitative analysis software to categorize the factors that helped and hindered the implementation of restoration projects. Prominent factors identified in the discussion groups that we discuss in the body of the report include factors related to administration and management, coordination, and resources. Other factors, such as laws and regulations, public awareness, and science were also raised to a lesser extent, and we do not discuss these in the body of the report. To obtain additional views on the coordination of Puget Sound restoration efforts, we interviewed federal and state agency officials as well as representatives from conservation, agricultural, and fishing industry organizations. We also obtained written responses from two Canadian agencies about their coordination of restoration activities with entities in the United States. We compared the information we obtained on the coordination of Puget Sound restoration efforts with selected leading collaboration practices that we previously identified and that were most relevant based on our initial audit work, such as leadership, bridging organizational cultures, and the inclusion of relevant participants. We also assessed federal entities’ implementation of the memorandum of understanding that established the federal task force. To examine the framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration, we reviewed laws, regulations, and key documents, such as the CCMP and the draft Federal Action Plan. We also reviewed the Partnership’s documentation on the results of its assessments of restoration progress. We identified some limitations associated with these results and noted those in our report where appropriate. We obtained additional views on efforts to assess progress from federal and nonfederal entities through the second phase of our survey and interviews described previously. For example, in the second phase of the survey, we asked the federal and state entities about their views on efforts to assess progress under the CCMP and the draft Federal Action Plan and about their views on the sufficiency of monitoring efforts in Puget Sound. We compared the information obtained through these steps with EPA’s National Estuary Program guidance and with leading practices for performance measurement and reporting to determine whether efforts to assess Puget Sound restoration progress have followed leading practices. To determine key factors, if any, federal and nonfederal entities identified that may limit the success of Puget Sound restoration, we used the second phase of our survey, which we described above, and our discussion groups to obtain views on factors that may pose a risk to the success of restoration efforts. We also reviewed the CCMP and other documentation and used our interviews with the federal and nonfederal entities described above to obtain views on limiting factors. In addition, we reviewed our prior work on large-scale ecosystem restoration efforts in other parts of the country, such as in the Great Lakes and Chesapeake Bay, to compare the key factors we identified in Puget Sound with factors that may limit restoration efforts that we identified in our past reports. We conducted this performance audit from October 2016 to July 2018 in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions based on our audit objectives. Appendix II: Catalog of Efforts Identified by Federal Entities that Supported Restoration Activities in Puget Sound As part of our first objective to examine Puget Sound restoration efforts, we surveyed 15 federal entities and asked them to provide information about their efforts that have supported Puget Sound restoration activities. Based on our research and discussions with federal and state officials, we identified six general categories of restoration activities: Habitat restoration – projects or other activities intended to restore degraded habitats. Habitat protection – projects or other activities intended to protect high-quality habitats from future degradation. Water quality improvement – projects or other activities intended to improve the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of waters within the Puget Sound basin by, for example, reducing stormwater runoff and other sources of water pollution. Monitoring – projects or other activities intended to monitor the physical, chemical, or biological characteristics of waters within the Puget Sound basin, including monitoring for the purposes of establishing baselines, identifying trends, and assessing the effectiveness or results of restoration activities. Research – research projects, studies, or other related activities intended to support Puget Sound restoration activities. Education and outreach – projects or other activities intended to educate the public about the state of Puget Sound and the pressures facing the basin or to elicit community support for restoration activities (e.g., by recruiting volunteers). Table 4 presents a catalog of applicable federal efforts from federal fiscal years 2012 through 2016 based on the survey responses from each federal entity. The table includes a wide range of efforts, including some efforts that focused exclusively on restoration-related activities and other efforts that had a broader scope of work that in some cases did not center directly on restoration. We further developed some information presented in the table based on information obtained from other sources, such as agency websites and documentation, and follow-up communications with the federal entities. We did not evaluate whether each entity had included all relevant efforts in their responses. Appendix III: Catalog of Efforts Identified by State Entities that Supported Restoration Activities in Puget Sound As part of our first objective to examine Puget Sound restoration efforts, we surveyed 11 state entities and asked them to provide information about their efforts that have supported Puget Sound restoration activities. We used the same six general categories of restoration activities as in the catalog of federal efforts in appendix II: Table 5 presents a catalog of applicable state efforts from state fiscal years 2012 through 2016 based on the survey responses from each state entity. The table includes a wide range of efforts, including some efforts that focused exclusively on restoration-related activities and other efforts that had a broader scope of work that in some cases did not center directly on restoration. We further developed some information presented in the table based on information obtained from other sources, such as agency websites and documentation, and follow-up communications with the state entities. We did not evaluate whether each entity had included all relevant efforts in their responses. Appendix IV: Comments from the Environmental Protection Agency Appendix V: Comments from the Puget Sound Partnership Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments GAO Contact J. Alfredo Gómez, (202) 512-3841 or gomezj@gao.gov. Staff Acknowledgments In addition to the individual named above, Janet Frisch (Assistant Director), Susan Iott (Assistant Director), Joshua Wiener (Analyst in Charge), Chuck Bausell, Stephen Betsock, Mark Braza, Ellen Fried, Jack Granberg, Carol Henn, Gina Hoover, Karen Howard, Vondalee Hunt, Benjamin T. Licht, Jeffery Malcolm, John Mingus, Patricia Moye, Dan C. Royer, Sara Sullivan, Sarah Veale, and Arvin Wu made key contributions to this report. Related GAO Products Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Improved Data Collection and Reporting Would Enhance Oversight. GAO-15-526. Washington, D.C.: July 21, 2015. Great Lakes Restoration Initiative: Further Actions Would Result in More Useful Assessments and Help Address Factors That Limit Progress. GAO-13-797. Washington, D.C.: September 27, 2013. Chesapeake Bay: Restoration Effort Needs Common Federal and State Goals and Assessment Approach. GAO-11-802. Washington, D.C.: September 15, 2011. Recent Actions by the Chesapeake Bay Program Are Positive Steps Toward More Effectively Guiding the Restoration Effort, but Additional Steps Are Needed. GAO-08-1131R. Washington, D.C.: August 28, 2008. Coastal Wetlands: Lessons Learned from Past Efforts in Louisiana Could Help Guide Future Restoration and Protection. GAO-08-130. Washington, D.C.: December 14, 2007. South Florida Ecosystem: Restoration Is Moving Forward but Is Facing Significant Delays, Implementation Challenges, and Rising Costs. GAO-07-520. Washington, D.C.: May 31, 2007. Chesapeake Bay Program: Improved Strategies Are Needed to Better Assess, Report, and Manage Restoration Progress. GAO-06-96. Washington, D.C.: October 28, 2005. Great Lakes: Organizational Leadership and Restoration Goals Need to Be Better Defined for Monitoring Restoration Progress. GAO-04-1024. Washington, D.C.: September 28, 2004. Great Lakes: An Overall Strategy and Indicators for Measuring Progress Are Needed to Better Achieve Restoration Goals. GAO-03-515. Washington, D.C.: April 30, 2003.
target: Puget Sound is the nation's second-largest estuary and serves as an important economic engine in Washington State, supporting millions of people, major industries, and a wide variety of species. However, according to the CCMP, human use and development have degraded water quality and habitats and harmed critical species such as salmon. GAO was asked to review efforts to restore Puget Sound. This report examines, among other objectives, (1) Puget Sound restoration efforts and related expenditures for fiscal years 2012 through 2016, (2) how federal and nonfederal entities coordinate their restoration efforts, and (3) the framework for assessing progress toward Puget Sound restoration. GAO reviewed restoration plans and other documentation, conducted a two-phase survey of the more than 25 federal and state entities that GAO determined had participated in restoration efforts, conducted discussion groups with tribal and local representatives, and interviewed representatives from these federal and nonfederal entities. Through its survey of federal and Washington State entities, GAO identified numerous federal and state efforts that, in whole or in part, supported Puget Sound restoration from fiscal years 2012 through 2016. The efforts involved a variety of activities, including habitat protection, water quality improvement, and monitoring. Some of these efforts focused exclusively on Puget Sound restoration, while others had a broader geographic or programmatic scope. Funding for these efforts came from a variety of sources, such as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which reported expending about $142 million for activities in Puget Sound through the National Estuary Program and the Puget Sound Geographic Program during this time frame. However, total expenditures for all efforts are unknown, in part because of difficulties isolating expenditures specific to Puget Sound. A 2017 state audit recommended that two state agencies develop a plan to create a more complete inventory of restoration efforts and related funding. The state agencies concurred and have plans to develop this inventory by August 2019. Federal and nonfederal entities coordinate restoration efforts through two primary interagency groups. First, the state-led Puget Sound Management Conference has developed a comprehensive conservation and management plan (CCMP), approved by EPA under the National Estuary Program, that serves as the primary planning document for Puget Sound restoration. Second, the Puget Sound Federal Task Force complements the work of the management conference by coordinating the efforts of federal agencies to support the CCMP, including by developing a draft Federal Action Plan that identifies priority federal actions to protect and restore Puget Sound. The CCMP lays out a framework for assessing restoration progress, including 6 goals, 47 indicators, and recovery targets for 31 of the indicators. In 2017, the Puget Sound Partnership, a state agency, reported that progress had been made in some areas, but many key indicators had not shown improvement. For example: One indicator that showed improvement was acres of harvestable shellfish beds, which the Partnership reported increased from 2007 to 2016. One indicator that showed no improvement was the abundance of Puget Sound Chinook salmon populations, which the Partnership reported remained below desired levels. The Partnership also reported that most of the 31 recovery targets that the management conference has adopted for 2020 are not likely to be attained. However, the Partnership's ability to assess progress has been limited in some instances, in part because the management conference has not developed targets for 16 of the 47 indicators. GAO has identified measurable targets as a key attribute of successful performance measures. By working with the management conference to help ensure that measurable targets are developed where possible for the highest priority indicators currently lacking such targets, EPA would better position the Partnership to assess progress toward restoration goals.